Blogging Around: 24, Lieberman, 2004 stolen election?

Scott Winship at the Democratic Strategist has some fascinating crunched numbers for anyone into such things.  He admits he is dangerously obsessed with the distribution of liberals and conservatives in the U.S. and, as might be imagined, spends a great deal of time studying the subject. 

First, consistent with conventional wisdom, attracting swing voters means emphasizing values and national security. These issues are crucial to improving performance among inconsistent identifiers and liberal-identifying conservatives. Values issues also appear key to keeping and improving performance among conservative-identifying liberals.

It is possible that an economic populist message would be effective among inconsistent identifiers, who appear primed for both economic and cultural populism. Populism doesn’t appear particularly likely to resonate among liberal-identifying conservatives, who became much more likely to support Bush between 2000 and 2004, during which time the al Qaida attacks seem to have pushed them toward Bush. Nor does it appear to be promising as a strategy aimed at conservative-identifying liberals who, after all, call themselves “conservative” mostly on the basis of their views on values issues.

Finally, increasing turnout could be successful, but I found that nonvoters had pretty much the same ideological distribution as voters did. So it wouldn’t necessarily yield a bumper crop of new Democratic votes.

Bull Moose takes Harold Meyerson to task for a few misguided opinions in Meyerson’s Washington Post piece.

Meyerson writes, “The issue here isn’t that Lieberman is not 100 percent. It’s that his positions — not just on foreign policy but on trade, Social Security and other key issues — are often out of sync with those of Democrats in his part of the country. To expect his region’s voters to dump the area’s moderate Republicans but back Lieberman is to expect that they will adopt a double standard in this year’s elections.”

To which Bull Moose responds:

And what evidence does Mr. Meyerson offer for this assertion? Joe opposed Social Security privatization. His position on trade is identical with the last successful Democratic President. He is pro-choice and has the support of Planned Parenthood. He is pro-labor and has the support of the AFL-CIO. He is pro-gay rights and has the support of the Human Rights Fund. He is pro-environment and has the support of the League of Conservation Voters.

In Mr. Meyerson’s world, that makes Joe Lieberman out-of-sync with modern progressivism. Of course, in truth, he and his blogosphere and buddies have only one issue, the war. They seek an American defeat. And then, for the next generation, the Democrats will have the same problem that they suffered from over the last thirty years – they are perceived as a weak party that will not be trusted to defend America.

Of course, what do you think the average American draws from this Democratic “civil war” over Joe Lieberman’s senate seat?  If you saw a married couple fighting in public, would you think that marriage was going to last?  Would you vote for it? 

Wes Clark said it best: “The American people will trust the Democratic Party to defend America when they believe that Democrats will defend other Democrats!”

DonkeyRising points out this morning that Democrats benefit from the “enthusiasm” gap.

Despite the glut of articles decrying the Democrats lack of vision, message, unity etc., when it comes to rank and file “enthusiasm” for voting for Democratic candidates, the Party is in exceptionally-good shape. According to the most recent Pew Research Center poll conducted 6/14-19, Democrats hold a “sizable” voter enthisiasm advantage over the GOP, with 46 percent of Democratic RV’s saying they are “more enthusiastic about voting than usual,” compared to just 30 percent of Republican RV’s saying the same.

The poll also found that 51 percent of Americans favor the Democratic candidate in their district, compared to 39 percent favoring Republican candidates.

I’d like to add that even though there has been a “glut of articles decrying the Democrats lack of vision, message, unity etc.,” the charge simply isn’t true.  One glaring example that runs contrary to the charge is the DLC, a Democratic think tank of sorts that has formulated mind numbingly detailed policy positions for 20 years – positions that powered the Clinton administration through two terms and record approval ratings.

Speaking of Clinton, well, Hillary to be exact, did she just suggest the 2004 election was stolen?

Without naming him, Clinton suggested on the last day of ACORN’s national convention that Republican Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell has a conflict of interest in running the bellwether state’s next election because he is running for governor.

”That should not permitted,” Clinton said, to screams and cheers from the crowd. The New York senator urged ACORN members ”don’t let anyone pull anything over your eyes again.”

FLASH!  Who will be the President next season on “24?”  E-Online drops this big hint:

Okay, who’s the President on 24 this season? Al Gore?
Shut up, Rob. According to one, two and now three reliable sources connected to Fox, the president will be someone we already know. Someone tied to someone we knew very well. Any guesses?

Could it be… Wayne Palmer?



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: